Now, let me stress that this is a HYPOTHETICAL question. It's not really happening, but I was faced with a choice regarding this decision. Tell me your views on this.
Issue:
Far-right-wing Nazi supporters plan to stage a rally in the city center tomorrow, giving voice to their violent, racist views.
Argument A:
"Frankly, I'm appalled that the government can even consider allowing this travesty to go ahead," says prominent Jewish banker Charles Longfellow. "We can't let these animals broadcast their message of hate. Surely [we are] too civilized for that."
Argument B:
"It's exactly because we're civilized that we must let the demonstration proceed," says free speech campaigner Lars McGuffin. "We may not like what they have to say, but in this society, people have the right to argue whatever political view they want, no matter how hateful, selfish, or stupid it is."
I side with A. What do all of you think of this?
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
But is it worth letting an Osama or a Hitler preach their message with the possibility that all their listeners will be convinced to act out genocide?
If Osama said "Go blow up the empire state building because America is the devil!" and some drones did it because he said so, I doubt it would be a saving grace for everyone to say "Well, he had the right to say that and preventing him would have meant we were oppressing freedom of speech." Yeah, it also would have prevented the destruction of a great landmark and thousands of deaths.
If politician was my occupation, I'd take being called a hypocrite for censoring an Osama or a Hitler than have the deaths of thousands on my head for not acting to quell the hate messages.
I don't personally care what they believe in, believe what you want. As soon as you start cramming that belief down the throats and into the ears of the world's impressionable populace, it becomes everyone's problem.
Purely because a bulk of us are at risk from global terrorism.
Dont you idiots know? Only black supremasists and black nationalists can have rallys and claim it is to "further their culture". Whites cant do it! it would be racist!
The problem with that point of view, is that it's hypocritical to the very freedom that we value. The only way that such a point of view can be countered with absolute certainty, is a concentrated program of education and mutual acceptance. That's why I said "Hopefully, one day" in my first post.
This won't happen in a country that is controlled by corporations, which have certain economic benefits to be gained by keeping rich people and poor people seperate. You know, in this country (the US) black people have more in common with those back-water, poor southern state racists, than they do with either Hitler...or the rich white people in this country.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
Last edited by Devil King on Oct 31st, 2005 at 03:24 AM
I know it's hypocritical. Hence my ending part about making that sacrifice.
If it was my job to protect people, I'd rather have "Stopped some man spreading hate and possibly resulting in terrorism: Contradicts freedom of speech." than "Let a man spread hate, resulting in many deaths" on my resume.
You are Fantaman : trying to live in a fantasy world !
Im sorry but i prefer being hypocritical rather than putting all my trust in hope. Hope is for lazy people who wont do anything.
__________________
Deferrals get you nowhere - Just Do It.........Or Ineptitude will consume your life like a Cancer
Well, if the point of the rally is to incite violence, then it can be legally stopped, as "fighting words" (speaking or acting in a way to incite violence) are illegal.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 31st, 2005 01:13 AM
